Does Anybody Think Al Gore Will Run?

Originally posted by RRconservative

Originally posted by Stormrider

Originally posted by RRconservative
ALGORE is taking a beating right now because of his new religion of Global Warming.

As goes Global Warming, so goes ALGORE.

Yeah, boy, winning an Academy Award and being considered for a Nobel Prize nust really be taking it out of him. I wonder how he manages to keep himself going these days.

The worst thing that could have happened was winning the Academy Award for that stupid scare mongering movie. Ever since then the movie has been discredited, and proved to be as truthful as your typical Michael Moore flick. That's where ALGORES troubles started.

No, not quite...who is that has discredited the facts presented in the movie? The things that are discussed there are still happening today and most scientists agree with Gore on almost every point. So who has discredited the film and how come the American public is not aware of ot?; the last poll on the subject showed that the majority of Americans still feel that Global Warming is a problem that needs to be addressed.

BTW, Rush Limbaugh was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. So I don't get your point on that?

At least Rush didn't have to lie to the people to get nominated.

I'd like to see your backup for that claim. Nominating Rush Limbaugh for the Peace Prize is a poor joke at best.

rr is a simpleton and rarely thinks out his thoughts... he claimed once that he didn't believe oil was a fossil fuel and was actually a renewable resource so I can't bring myself to take much of what he says seriously... global warming has only be reputed in his mind.

Originally posted by grover
Mush Loosebowels nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...What has he ever done for humanity?

Want a few more 'Nobel Peace Prize' kickers ???

Hitler was also nominated. Heck ... Arafat (a mass murdering terrorist and homosexual-pedophile-rapist) won. Neither of them did anything for humanity except attempt to destroy us all.

The Nobel Peace Prize isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Originally posted by Stormrider
who is that has discredited the facts presented in the movie?

I already posted this . This is one place that has put out information that disputes Gore's film.
Oh .. and as far as calling the information in Gore's film 'facts' ... I'm reserving judgement for now.

[edit on 5/14/2007 by FlyersFan]

Ya know you claim that those of us who accept the notion of global warming have some facts are skewed.... but I looked at your site flyersfan and has far less credibility than bush minor does about Iraq. After all the MAJORITY of scientists WORLDWIDE support the fundamental global warming model... and what do you have? Exxon owned scientists and the National Review. You can believe what you want to believe, I really don't give a rats ass but when it comes to this... your side has zero credibility.

Ya know what I simply don't understand is the right wing opposition to the notion of global warming, and our contribution to it. It really should not be a liberal/conservative issue.
In the two ways of being wrong on this issue I would rather ere on the side of caution and take whatever steps might work to curb global warming than ere on the side that the science might be wrong... after all conservation is always a prudent policy whereas ignoring or denying the issue is a negative and does no one any good, especially if wrong.

Originally posted by grover
Thats nonsense. I firmly believe that the wealthy should be taxed accordingly and that if anyone should have a tax burden lifted off them its the poor and the middle classes and that does not make we want to go out and shoot anybody...

What tax burden do the poor have? The poor pay taxes? Of course they don't!

It's constantly pounded into our heads by liberals, that any tax cuts only benefit the rich.

Couldn't a mentally-challenged person hear it so often and develop a hatred for the rich?

That is the goal of liberals, to create a class hatred for people who have more than themselves. That way it makes it much easier to get tax increases to punish the rich for being so productive.

Of course liberals have ulterior motives, they want higher taxes because they believe that gives them more money to spend. Even though they are wrong...lower taxes on everyone creates more revenue for government.

My point is that it is not a stretch to think this guy was a liberal with his own confession of hatred toward the rich. I thought it, and Rush pointed it out!

On the Nobel Prize issue. Yes Rush was nominated! Will he win? Of course not! The Nobel Prize lost is chance of being prestigious, when it failed to honor Ronald Reagan, the one man who had more to do with peace in our lifetime.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by RRconservative]

Bull Hooey!!!

I am poor and I paid my fair share of payroll taxes as does anyone who works and the various sales taxes inevitably fall harder on the poor than on anyone else.

I repeat the man was insane, rational arguments do not apply. It was not a conservative/liberal thing... nor should it have ever been made into one.

As a person who lives within the shock zone as it were, it was a very local event (Blacksburg is just 35 miles south of here and Va. Tech is very much THE local school of which everybody has some sort of connection) I find mush loosebowel's politicizing of the tragedy disgusting and deeply offensive... and you do not make the matter any more palatable... its stupidity, mean spirited and hateful.

P.S. you don't know jack s--- about being liberal... or what it means. All you know is what mush has told you.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by grover]

posted by Stormrider

And if [Al Gore] does [run] how do you think he would fare against the likes of Hillary, Barack and company? I think he will decide to run, despite his statements to the contrary. Deep down inside, he really believes he can be a good president and let's face it, losing the election in 2000 while winning the popular vote has got to rankle just a little bit, don't you think? What are your thoughts? [Edited by Don W]

The Dems hit it on the head when they perceived the 2000 race would turn on Florida. That is why CT maverick Joe Lieberman was the VP choice. To get the Jewish vote in Florida. He came within 529 votes of doing it! Not bad forecasting. In ‘04, the Dems saw Ohio as the pivotal state and again it was, but this time they fell short by 110,000 votes. John Edwards did his best. (GOP wins FL by 529 votes is the official 2000 count.)

posted by Grover

My hope is this . . Obama and Clinton so bloody themselves during the primary that neither one gets the votes to take the convention and no one will want them and for the first time in a long time the door is thrown open for a dark horse candidate. Into that Gore could toss his hat and easily come away with the nomination. To date there isn't a Republican candidate with the brains or the stature that he does and I seriously think he could do it. Either Gore Richardson or Gore Edwards would make a great ticket.

I dunno. Gore Edwards has been tried and no matter how much we would like another recount in Florida, it is not a good idea to run a loser. It speaks of a bankrupt political party if it cannot find other equally attractive candidates. Would you buy last years computer? Or a cell phone made 4 years ago? Then who wants a warmed over candidate?

Gore Richardson would be slightly better, but only slightly.

As I see the Dems strategy for ‘08: the electron will swing on either the south or the west. It looks to me the Dems have decided this time it will swing on the west. That is why they chose Denver for the ‘08 convention. Which is also why I pick NM’s Bill Richardson as the most likely choice for the #2 spot on a Hillary Clinton ticket. If the Dems figure the pivotal state is in the south, then VA’s Mark Warner or FL’s Bill Nelson are likely choices.

The GOP, OTOH, knows it cannot expect to break the Dems hold on the Northeast and NY-NJ. So why go to NYC for your convention? Perhaps to embarrass the likely Dem nominee, NY Senator Hillary Clinton? It may be the GOP hierarchy plans on Giuliani as the nominee? Maybe Rudy will deliver his acceptance speech from the WTC Memorial?

If this is the scenario, who will Rudy pick to be his VP candidate? It looks to me that Mitt Romney is placing himself right there, at the ready! So how do you think a Giuliani Romney ticket will stack up against a Clinton Richardson ticket?

[edit on 5/15/2007 by donwhite]

The rich deserve tax cuts, period. They create jobs. The middle class is definitely being screwed. They (we) do pay too much taxes. And the poor; Yeah, they'd be one of the biggest tax burdens. Liberals love them entitlements. "Pay us more money for the poor so we can give you everything you 'need' whereby keeping you under our all caring thumb." The more free stuff you give them, the more they need to suck off that government teet. Tax cuts, in my opinion, are the wrong way to go. We need to eliminate the IRS. They're a built-in burden on our society. We need to have someone with a big name that has the cojones to run with that as their big campaign topic. I absolutely HATE Al Gore with a passion. I'd just as soon eat farts than shake his hand. However, should he run with a flat tax plan (17% or less) or the "Fair Tax" plan that's been overly ignored...I'd think about voting for him. Anybody that runs with that, with the utmost sincerity, would have a huge chunk of my respect, and more than likely, my vote. Oh, and bye the way, global warming is one of the many cycles that our very resilient Mother Earth goes through in her life. All planets go through cycles of cooling and warming. Welcome to nature. Just look at Mars. There's no SUVs there, yet it's going through a warming stage. Hmpf, go figure. I'm not denying that we as humans on a global scale add, a little, to global warming. Sure we can clean up some of it. I'm game. But does that mean we should kill all of the horses and cows? They happen to contribute more than humans to global warming. Methane gas anybody?

I regard it as unconscionable that the United States has run a deficit every year since 2001, during a time of great prosperity. Over the past 6 years, we have added more than $2 trillion dollars to our already excessive national debt. We pay about 4% a year to “service” the national debt. That is more than $300 b. every year. Money that could be better spent on repairing and renewing our own nation’s infrastructure but which goes instead to Persian Gulf sheiks and China’s own PLA. Among others.

“Service” is a term employed to denote that no money is being paid on the principal - no pay down of debt - but we are paying interest only. Whether it was intended or not, borrowing in a time of plenty has the effect of shifting the tax burden to a later generation. “Let out grand children pay” for what we should have paid for. Not a respectable philosophy. IMO. We are placing serious limits on the fiscal options of later generations. Do we really have that right or are we acting as usurpers?

The 2008 US Budget will be about $3 trillion. About $1.8 t. will be spent in Social Security and Medicare payments. These are called entitlements because when Congress enacted the laws setting forth the payments, it did not know how many people would be eligible or entitled to receive the payments. Over the years our data gathering skills have been much improved as have also our capability to make projections via computer models. We can produce more accurate estimates of future liabilities than was possible when the laws mentioned were first enacted.

Aside. Both Social Security and Medicare are paid for by special taxes collected under the caption, FICA. Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The tax on wages, 6.2%, goes for Social Security which also pays total disability benefits and survivors benefits for minor children, as well as the better known retirement benefits. The 1.45% tax goes for Medicare. Employers match the worker’s contribution so that 15.3% of wages is collected, with some limits. Self-employed persons pay the full amount. FICA was adopted when Medicare was enacted in 1965. This changed OASI, Old Age and Survivors Insurance, the nom de plume of Social Security when first enacted in 1935. Medicaid is a program for the poor and is paid for out of General Fund money and not out of Trust Fund money.

Resume. This leaves about $1.2 trillion in what is called the discretionary budget. The largest component is the Department of Defense budget. The next largest is the payment on national debt. The new Homeland Security Department is the 3rd largest single item in the budget. I don’t know how other expenditures rank. (Note: I have read that “earmarks” run about $25 million per congressperson per year, or $15 billion. Earmarks are subject to much criticism, but most of the money is well spent.)

Assuming we all have honorable intentions, I declare that any tax offered to replace the current graduated tax scheme should at a minimum, raise enough money to put the Federal budget into the black, that is, to pay as we go. A tax plan that does less implies the proponent has a hidden agenda or is just plainly incompetent and lacks the fundamental skills of arithmetic.

Assuming the FICA tax is not disturbed, that means any alternative tax plan must raise about $1.2 trillion a year. Because the FICA tax is applied to every working person from the first dollar earned including the “working poor,” it is often suggested a flat tax would have an exempted amount, such as $25,000 per family or $10,000 per person, before the flat tax would be applied. Already what started as a simple tax plan becomes complicated.

I am not familiar with the “Fair Tax” but I’m alerted to a scam just seeing the name. “Fair” is a provocative word that means one thing to one person and another thing to another person. When applied to taxes, it rings of sham and fraud. It may cover a hidden agenda? My current impression is the “fair tax” is a minor variation on the value added tax used in many European countries for decades. When it - or any tax - is properly incorporated into an overall taxing scheme, it could be useful. OTOH, I love the system employed in my old state of Ky, they tax everything! This has the distinct advantage of reaching everyone. Everyone gets to contribute to the burden of running the government and providing governmental services. Bravo!

The 17% Flat Tax will not raise sufficient revenue. I have read if all Federal taxes (excluding FICA) were abolished and the Flat Tax replaced it, the rate would have to be closer to 34% if a balanced budget is made a requirement. Despite the appeal of its potential simplicity, when you begin to include necessary exemptions for the poor and near poor, it suddenly looks pretty much like the current tax scheme.

Finally, the R&Fs - Rich and Famous - already have achieved a “flat tax” for much of their income and have no further interest in promoting it. That is why you no longer hear mainstream Republican candidates mention it. The Republicans in the 109th Congress, ever alert to help the R&Fs, put a 15% tax rate cap on income derived from dividends. Wow!

I have a friend whose father died and left him 45,000 shares of Wachovia Bank. Wachovia pays 75 cents per share per quarter in dividends. On a dividend income of $135,000 per year, he pays $20,250 in tax. Living in Florida which has no income tax - Ky has one - he has the tidy sum of $9,562 a month on which to live. Yes, he is retired and yes, he does pay Federal income tax on 50% of his social security benefit, the half that his employer paid and on which he had not previously paid any tax.

VP Cheney and others similarity well situated got an even better tax rate from the last Republican Congress. A 5% tax rate on income earned outside the US! Geez, it doesn’t get any better than this. It’s no mystery to me why Halliburotn moved to the UAE - United Arab Emirates. And, a bonus, can you imagine the difficulty, the delay, when Congress attempts to subpoena Halliburton’s records? Although Congress issues the subpoenas, it is the President who must enforce the service of subpoenas. Yeah! I hope all you good Republicans will be able to take full advantage of both these two new special tax laws for the R&Fs from the 109th Congress.

See you in Aspen?

[edit on 5/16/2007 by donwhite]

The "Fair Tax" plan is based on the premise that everytime you buy something, you pay tax on it. Simple. That means drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and rich people would pay the same taxes as everybody else. That to me sounds fair. Hence the name? I'm sure you'll find some fault with that as well. I'm not trying to be mean, but it just seems as though you're doing the typical Democrat thing by shooting down ideas and not coming up with any. What ideas do you have? I'd be glad to hear them.

Originally posted by bjshobbes
The "Fair Tax" plan is based on the premise that everytime you buy something, you pay tax on it. Simple. That means drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and rich people would pay the same taxes as everybody else. That to me sounds fair. Hence the name? I'm sure you'll find some fault with that as well. I'm not trying to be mean, but it just seems as though you're doing the typical Democrat thing by shooting down ideas and not coming up with any. What ideas do you have? I'd be glad to hear them.

The big fault in that plan is that sales taxes fall most heavily on the poor. Say the tax is set at 10%, for arguments sake and you have two people, one who makes 100,000 a year and the other makes 20,000. Both buy (and this is assuming that food is not included in the tax but every other purchase is) 10,000 worth of goods and services over a year, the tax on that is 1,000, consequently both pay 1,000 more than their actual purchases... 1,000 is nothing to the person making 100,000 but to the person making 20,000 it is far more significient.... it is literally 10% of his remaining income. AND, if food is included or clothing or things like utility bills then it really becomes a burden. It would be fairer if it was only applied to non essentials and luxury items.

Better in my opinion is to close ALL the loopholes for both individuals and especially corporations and especially corporations who set up off shore mailboxes and call them headquarters to avoid paying taxes... if you do business here you should be taxed on the worth of what you do.

I have no problem paying taxes and I have no problem with welfare, having been on the skids a few times, I was grateful it was there, but what I do have a problem with is some Joe making 10 times what I do, 100 times what I do, and paying less in taxes on it... that really tics me off.

posted by bjshobbes

The "Fair Tax" plan is based on the premise that every time you buy something, you pay tax on it. Simple. That means drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and rich people would pay the same taxes as everybody else. That to me sounds fair . . [Edited by Don W]

How is the Fair Tax not just a Federal Sales Tax? Does anyone know how much revenue the personal income tax produces which the Fair Tax would have to replace?

Consider the numbers I have given - $1.2 t. - for the discretionary budget for 2008. With 300 million people in the US, that would amount to $4,000 for every man, woman and child. Now how’s that fair? Maybe if you are Mr Bloomberg who has $5.5 b. Chicken feed he’d call it. Bill Gates pays over $300 million a year in taxes, geez, the Fair Tax would cut him to $4,000?
How’s that fair?

There is nothing fair about the FAIR Tax except it treats us all as being Fairly equally dumb.

I'm sure you'll find some fault with that as well. It just seems as though you're doing the typical Democrat’s thing by shooting down ideas and not coming up with any. What ideas do you have? I'd be glad to hear them. [Edited by Don W]

I’ve posted my ideas too many times here, but once again: Reimpose the 1993 tax rates across the board.

FYI, that law was passed by Congress when the Dems were in charge, and every Dem voted for it and EVERY Republican voted against it. Hmm? Don’t forget it worked and the country did not go to hell! We got the first balanced budget in a generation and we hd a forecasted $1.8 t. surplus which Bush43 promptly gave away to the R&Fs. Yup, your typical Democrat’s thing.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by donwhite]

www.answers.com...:more
This works for me. If someone runs with this as a major part of their platform, I'm in.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by bjshobbes]

Read these extracts from your link, Mr BJ

The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform and Economist William Gale analyzed a National Sales Tax similar to the FairTax (though also different in several aspects) and reported that the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the very rich would drop

The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns with the FairTax, calling it "the largest (entitlement program) in American history," and contending that it would "make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes.

The FairTax legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of new retail goods and services; in other words, consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent (sometimes called tax-inclusive — as income taxes are calculated). The assessed tax rate is 30% if the FairTax is added to the pre-tax price of a good like traditional U.S. state sales taxes

Opponents of FairTax argue that imposing a national retail sales tax would drive transactions underground and create a vast underground economy. The President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform found the rate would need to be 25% in order to replace the income tax alone (i.e., it would need by be substantially higher to replace payroll taxes and the estate tax).

Just remember one thing, any tax must raise THREE TRILLION DOLLARS a year.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by donwhite]

What about Al Gore as a left wing third party candidate ?
I know that Gore wouldn't have a chance at winning if he ran on a third party ticket. But given the current state of the dems ( no actually plans or values just scoring points off the woeful Bush admin ) Gore may be inclined to join a third party ticket if he wanted to run again.

I'm not saying that Gore will join a third party ticket but I am putting the idea out there for discussion.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11

What about Al Gore as a left wing third party candidate? I know that Gore wouldn't have a chance at winning if he ran on a third party ticket. But given the current state of the Dems (no actually plans or values just scoring points off the woeful Bush admin) Gore may be inclined to join a third party ticket if he wanted to run again. I'm not saying that Gore will join a third party ticket but I am putting the idea out there for discussion. [Edited by Don W]

First off, Mr X11, there is already a good example how that - a liberal party - might work out. NYC has 4 political parties. The Dems and GOP. Plus a party called “Liberal Party” and another called “Conservative Party.” Aside: Go to Wikipedia and Vito Marcantonio for a short review of NYC politics in the 1930s and 1940s. Resume: Gore still exerts some influence in Dem circles - like a grand-father - wise but too old to act - which he would lose if he jumped ship. Heck, he may get to make the 4th endorsing speech at Denver? Gore does not want to become a second Ralph Nader. Persona non grata in Dem circles after throwing the 2000 election to Bush43. A re-run of Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 endeavor.

Last on, Americans have never engaged in thoughtful discussions of political philosophies, as has often been the case in Europe, especially in France. And the UK as in 1945. Americans are entirely pragmatic when not being opportunistic. Americans don’t give a dam what you think as much as they give a dam about what you do. Americans know only that Hobbes and Hume both begin with the letter “H.” Let us not unduly complicate matters.

[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]

It occurs to me that I am constantly offering negative commentary or looking at the downside of every positive proposal made by others. I do not see myself as a pessimist, rather more as a realist. I admit there is a thin line between pessimism and realism. I would prefer to be remembered more as a gadfly than as a naysayer. Indeed, my password is “bluffly” which is the shortened version of Blue Tail Fly, a particularly aggravating fly native to the deep south. A fly that goes out of its way to bite you. A creature made popular by Burl Ives. But even blue tail flies make love and have many offspring. So I’m not all bad.

Although I'm not Catholic, I thought this confession was due and I offer it as sort of an oblique apology for not jumping on one or the other of the many bandwagons discussed on ATS. You guys keep up the good work! And I guess I’ll keep up my usual commentary, hopefully factual if not approving.


[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Last on, Americans have never engaged in thoughtful discussions of political philosophies, as has often been the case in Europe, especially in France. And the UK as in 1945. Americans are entirely pragmatic when not being opportunistic. Americans don’t give a dam what you think as much as they give a dam about what you do. Americans know only that Hobbes and Hume both begin with the letter “H.” Let us not unduly complicate matters.
[edit on 5/17/2007 by donwhite]

Unless I'm misinterpreting your statements, you're calling all Americans ignorant, and selfish. Do you honestly believe this? Sure there are plenty of those types of people here, but that goes for every country in the world. IMO, anybody who has voted, or would vote for Al Gore would fall into this category. The man is a comsuate liar. How can you not see through him? (I'm not saying that I'm a big Bush fan. I think I got sold on some garbage there.) But Al Gore? I would not consider him a viable Presedential candidate. He would only bring us closer to being a Socialist society. He'll never get the nomination from the Dems. He's way to far left.